Rich People Do Live Longer, But Not Just Because They're Wealthy

Those looking for a magic elixir to keep them healthy and happy
need look no further than their bank
account. Wealth and, more broadly, socioeconomic status, play
a powerful role in determining how long we live.

"It's clear that those who have less wealth will have fewer years
to live than those with more wealth," says James Smith, senior
economist at the research group RAND. The connection is so widely
accepted that researchers have given it a name: "the wealth
gradient in mortality." What's far more complicated to understand
is why the connection exists, and whether wealth causes better
health, or vice versa.

The longest-running
longitudinal study of health, run by George Vaillant,
professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, found
education to be one of the biggest determinants of longevity,
along with behavioral factors—excessive drinkers were more likely
to die young, for example. Out of the 500-plus Harvard students
and inner-city Boston men the study has followed since 1937, the
Harvard students lived an average of 10 years longer than the
inner-city men, says Vaillant. In fact, 3 in 10 of the Harvard
students lived to 90, compared to the 3 to 5 percent one would
expect from that age group.

Among the inner-city men who attended college, health was just as
good as that of Harvard students who attended college but not
graduate school, says Vaillant. "[The Boston men] went to
terrible colleges by Harvard standards, but they did get 16 years
of education, and that absolutely evened the playing field," says
Vaillant. People who go to college tend to drink less, smoke
less, and are less likely to be obese, he adds, all factors that
contribute to longevity. In fact, after controlling for education
and other factors, Vaillant found that income alone had little
effect on longevity.

People who pursue higher education, explains Vaillant, tend be
more focused on the future, which probably also helps them make
healthier choices. "In order to get an education, especially if
you're poor, you have to think you have a future," he says.

Indeed,
says Smith, one hypothesis is that "more-educated people are more
forward-looking, and when they make decisions, they take into
account the future more than uneducated people. A lot of things
you might do don't have an immediate negative impact—excessive
drinking, smoking, and doing drugs can [feel good in the
short-term]—but the fact is it's going to kill you in the
future." Another possibility is that people with higher levels of
education are more likely to maintain their health, have better
access to healthcare, and follow doctors' directions when it
comes to taking pills or other instructions.

Smith's research also suggests that causality doesn't just run
one way; health contributes to wealth, as well. "Because you are
healthy and able to work, you are wealthier," he explains. At the
same time, poor health often takes a toll on a person's wealth,
either because it prevents one from working or because of
expensive medical treatments. Taken together, researchers at
the University
of Chicago estimate that the gains in life expectancy
between 1970 and 2000 resulted in an additional $3.2 trillion a
year in national wealth.

Meanwhile, as income disparities continue to grow in this
country, so do life expectancy disparities. According an analysis
by from the Social
Security Administration, life expectancy for 65-year-old men
in the top half of the earnings distribution has increased by
five years, to 21.5 more years. For those in the bottom half of
the earnings distribution, life expectancy has increased just
over one year, to 16.1 more years.

A likely factor, says Monique Morrissey, an economist at the
Economic Policy Institute, is differing access to healthcare.
"Not just people who are not insured, but if you have better
insurance, you might get tested earlier, have better access to
care, and be better able to follow complicated treatments—there
have been a lot of improvements in cardiovascular care,
especially for men," she says. While behavioral factors such as
smoking and obesity likely explain much of the overall connection
between wealth and health, they can't account for the growing
disparity in life expectancy, since those behavioral factors are
not growing disproportionately themselves.

Among younger Americans, health disparities are particularly
pronounced, which could adversely affect U.S. life expectancy in
the future. Eric Reither, associate professor of sociology at
Utah State University, has found that among younger Americans,
obesity-related diseases like heart disease and diabetes will
likely increase.

As a result, Reither says he envisions two Americas in the coming
decades. "One that is relatively poor and adversely affected by
obesity and related conditions, and one that is relatively
well-off and less affected by these diseases. Life expectancy
trajectories for these groups will likely follow different paths,
with the former stagnating and perhaps even experiencing some
decline, and the latter continuing to inch upward."

As for that magic elixir, a group of British scientists now say
they have identified a hormone more prevalent in the wealthy that
they link to longevity. The hormone regulates one's stress
response and is connected to diet, exercise, and relationships—all
known longevity-inducing factors. One can imagine that hormone
being packaged and marketed as some kind of magic youth serum,
next to antioxidant pills and superfoods.

But for Vaillant, the answer is much simpler. "Those wonderful
pills that are marketed to let you live forever—those things just
don't seem to be terribly important," he says. Instead, it's
making bigger behavioral choices, such as avoiding drinking too
much and nurturing a stable marriage, that let people prolong
their lives. And as for what makes people happy in old age,
Vaillant says it has more to do with strong, loving relationships
than anything for sale at a store. Says Vaillant, "I'm 77, and
what I enjoy most are my grandchildren."